Journal of Cleaner Production 224 (2019) 751e765

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Stochastic cost-benefit analysis of urban waste-to-energy systems

Masahiko Haraguchi a, *, Afreen Siddiqi a, b, Venkatesh Narayanamurti a, c
a
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University, 79 John F. Kennedy St, Cambridge, MA, 02138, USA
b
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA
c
John A. Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Harvard University, 29 Oxford St, Cambridge, MA, 02138, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Municipal solid waste generation is a rapidly increasing challenge that is leading to severe pollution and
Received 24 October 2018 environmental degradation in many urban areas of developing countries. Globally, the solid waste sector
Received in revised form accounts for 18% of methane emissions and 3e4% of greenhouse gas emissions overall. Waste handling
22 January 2019
and disposal systems in most large cities have largely been designed with minimal accounting of
Accepted 9 March 2019
Available online 14 March 2019
environmental issues. This study presents the Waste to Energy Recovery Assessment (WERA) framework,
a new quantitative decision support model for initial evaluation and alternative comparisons of different
thermochemical treatments of municipal wastes. The framework not only accounts for benefits through
Keywords:
Waste-to-energy
electricity generation but also accounts for emissions from facilities and the associated social cost of
Cost-benefit analysis carbon in a cost-benefit assessment. The assessments are conducted with Monte Carlo simulations that
Uncertainty analysis explicitly account for uncertain factors such as future composition and generation of solid waste, tech-
Monte Carlo simulation nical efficiency of treatment processes, capital and operating costs, as well as future policies. The
Waste management framework is used to study waste-to-energy (WtE) systems for Abu Dhabi, Riyadh, Tokyo and New York.
Circular economy The results show that WtE systems can fulfill only 1.4e3.6% of 2014 electricity demand in the analyzed
cases. Furthermore, the net present value for different technologies can be positive if collection fees and
electricity rates (potentially set through feed-in-tariff policies) are sufficiently high. The analysis for Abu
Dhabi and Riyadh also reveals that in a limited set of conditions (of technology efficiencies, and waste
collection rates etc.) the WtE facilities can be self-sustaining investments.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction landslides at waste dumpsite caused 150 deaths and relocation of

Waste generation from cities worldwide is estimated to increase
to 2.2 billion tons, doubling by 2025 compared to 2010 (Hoornweg
and Bhada-Tata, 2012) (Figure A.1 in Supplementary Document
(SM)). While waste generation is rapidly increasing, there has not
been a corresponding expansion of waste collection, handling and
disposal systems in many countries. In upper middle and lower-
middle-income countries, 33% of waste goes to dump sites
without proper treatment (Figure A.2 in SM). Improper waste
management leads to contamination of water, air, and soil, with
critically adverse impacts on human health (Kumar et al., 2017;
Maheshi et al., 2015). Chronic diseases due to exposure to toxic
metals and chemicals as well as infectious diseases, including
cholera, typhoid, and tuberculosis, result from inadequate and even
non-existent waste handling systems in many urban areas. In 2017,
several hundred in Colombo, Sri Lanka; Addis Ababa, Ethiopia;
Conakry, Guinea; and Delhi, India (Kaza and Yao, 2018). Ineffective
waste management also exacerbates anthropogenic global warm-
ing: municipal solid waste (MSW) contributes 3e5% of global
anthropogenic Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (United Nations
Environment Programme, 2015). Furthermore, the total waste
sector (solid waste and wastewater) accounts for 18% of methane
emissions at the global scale (Scheutz et al., 2009), which has 21
times higher global warming potentials than carbon dioxide
(Kumar and Samadder, 2017). While many studies examine energy-
related GHG emissions in urban areas (e.g., New York (Parshall
et al., 2011)), the waste sector needs to be studied more for this
purpose, especially at the global context.
The challenges of urban solid waste management can be partly
addressed with emerging technologies for waste-to-energy sys-
tems. WtE systems offer several advantages:

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Masahiko_Haraguchi@hks.harvard.edu (M. Haraguchi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.099
0959-6526/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
752 M. Haraguchi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 224 (2019) 751e765

First, WtE can minimize the amount of waste sent to landfill. In
countries where WtE systems have been built, it has been the
limited availability for landfill and public awareness towards
environmental impacts of waste disposal sites that has pressed
municipal governments to consider effective waste treatment
and disposal strategies (Xin-gang et al., 2016). On this issue,
thermal treatment WtE plants have advantages since they can
significantly reduce the solid waste in mass (70e80%) and in
volume (about 80e90%) (Gohlke and Martin, 2007; Lombardi
et al., 2015).

Second, WtE technologies can generate heat and electricity.
Therefore, WtE plants can be “a means to bridge the gap be-
tween sustainable environment and energy supply (Ayodele
et al., 2017).” Furthermore, WtE, where financially viable, can
help establish waste collection systems and handling in cities
where there were none before. This can be a bridge towards
future more sustainable waste handling systems of improved
recycling and reuse. While waste recycling and reuse should
always be of higher priority, WtE systems are still needed as a
necessary element in a complete waste management system for
a region.
Most of the existing WtE systems, operating for the last few
decades in the US, Japan, and Europe, largely use incineration
processes and have mixed performance on emissions
(Psomopoulos et al., 2009). In recent years, there has been progress
towards increasing the rate of energy recovery and reducing
emissions (Castaldi and Themelis, 2010). Most studies, however,
have not examined the potential role of these emerging technolo-
gies in enhancing the viability of WtE plants. Furthermore, a
combined assessment of emerging technologies in conjunction
with policy options have not been conducted. The financial viability
of WtE plants is of critical importance as it is largely the cost bar-
riers that have constrained effective waste management in many
regions.
This study presents a new quantitative evaluation framework
for stochastic cost-benefit assessment of WtE systems in urban
regions. In addition to using traditional direct costs and benefits
(in the form of electricity sales), the assessment includes benefits
due to emissions reduction. Key parameters, such as efficiency of
emerging technologies, future population, and per capita waste
generation, are modeled probabilistically. The application of this
framework is demonstrated for four urban cases: Tokyo, New
York, Abu Dhabi and Riyadh. Tokyo and New York, where WtE
plants have been in operation for decades, serve for partial vali-
dation of the framework. The Middle Eastern cities of Abu Dhabi
and Riyadh were chosen due to their expanding infrastructure
development and urbanization, along with the research team's
interest on energy, water, and environmental challenges in that
broader region (Siddiqi et al., 2013; Siddiqi and Anadon, 2011). In
each of these cases, the following over-arching questions are
investigated: 1) which (if any) combinations of technologies and
policies enable or enhance financial viability of an urban WtE
system? And 2) what fraction of energy demand of a city can be
served by WtE plants?
In the following sections, fundamental components for the
framework and existing major thermochemical technologies
analyzed in this study are first described. Then, the probabilistic
models of uncertain parameters and social costs of emissions, used
in the framework, are described. The decision framework is then
applied to four cities (Abu Dhabi, Riyadh, Tokyo and New York), and
the results are analyzed and discussed. Lastly, strengths and limi-
tations of the proposed model and policy implications are
highlighted.
2. Challenges and research gaps
2.1. System analysis for decision-making under future uncertainties
Decision-makers involved in the long-term planning of
capital-intensive infrastructure need to address uncertainties
that can critically impact financial sustainability over the life-
cycle of the system (Fletcher et al., 2017). Studies that capture
multiple uncertainties in developing a decision framework for
long-term investment are limited (Huang et al., 2001; Juul et al.,
2013). In case of WtE facilities, there are significant uncertainties
in future waste generation rates, socioeconomic progression, cost
variations in different technologies, variations of revenues from
generated electricity, and environmental benefits from facilities.
In current literature, less than half of the case studies in 136
papers that examine WtE from Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) per-
spectives conduct uncertainty analysis (Astrup et al., 2015). Sys-
tems analysis models can effectively capture multiple
uncertainties; however, such studies are limited. Pires et al.
(2011) conducted holistic literature reviews of 218 papers that
utilize systems analysis to examine solid waste management
systems in Europe. They found that the majority of papers are
more associated with assessment tools, such as LCA and Envi-
ronmental Impact Assessment (EIA). From a methodological
standpoint there is a growing amount of literature that examines
the economic and environmental sustainability of WtE technol-
ogies using LCA. Examples include LCA in Nigeria's WtE facilities
(Ayodele et al., 2017), sustainability assessment in Spanish
incineration plants (Margallo et al., 2014), and WtE facilities in
Saudi Arabia (Ouda et al., 2016). However, LCA methods do not
analyze driving parameters that contribute to total economic
feasibility. As suggested by T. F. Astrup et al. (2015), this study
proposes a method to systematically address uncertainty in data
by statistical simulations, such as Monte Carlo Simulation. The
state-of-the-art contribution of this study is to develop a
framework that captures uncertainties in key parameters. A
range of future outcomes are then systematically studied for
guiding actions and policy for WtE systems (which have largely
been studied with deterministic techniques).
2.2. Geographical challenges in assessing environmental
externalities caused by emissions
The broader potential for using WtE technologies has been
assessed to a limited extent for different urban regions in emerging
and industrial nations. The scientific literature that accounts for
environmental externalities in assessing feasibilities of WtE tech-
nologies using social costs of pollutants and GHGs is limited. Even
though studies that investigate the economic feasibility of WtE
technologies exist, they are limited mostly to US, Europe, and Japan
(e.g., Italy (Cucchiella et al., 2014)), US (e.g., Martinez-Sanchez et al.
(2017) and Japan (Tabata, 2013)). Other examples include a biomass
market in Thailand (Ali et al., 2012) and WtE in China (Xin-gang
et al., 2016). However, they do not consider environmental exter-
nalities due to emissions. A few studies have conducted a cost-
benefit analysis in developing countries while accounting for so-
cial costs of emissions (See an example in Thailand (Ali et al., 2012)).
Within this context of existing literature, a distinguishing feature of
this work is the focus on some rapidly growing cities in the Middle
East along with incorporation of monetized emission reduction
benefits in a new stochastic assessment framework.
 M. Haraguchi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 224 (2019) 751e765
3. Waste to Energy Recovery Assessment (WERA) framework
3.1. Scope
The WERA framework assesses WtE technologies of thermo-
chemical conversion, namely incineration, gasification, pyrolysis,
and refuse-derived fuel (RDF). The scope of the framework is
depicted with dotted lines in Fig. 1. The system boundary assumed
in this study is a single WtE plant that treats the entire municipal
waste using one of the technologies listed above. The framework
does not account for costs or revenues associated with waste
collection, shipping, and recycling. Furthermore, costs of safe
disposal of ash and other residues from the thermochemical pro-
cesses are not included. A detailed list of costs and benefits included
in WERA are presented in Table B.1 in SM.
3.2. Framework components
The framework consists of five key parts:
1) Projection of municipal solid waste quantity and composition to
a target year.
2) Conversion of waste to energy and monetization of energy
production for each technology. Different efficiencies are
accounted for different technologies. Collection fees are also
counted.
3) Derivation of present value of benefits over a period of analysis
in a year with a given discount rate. This part includes the
calculation of other benefits such as greenhouse gas reductions,
i.e., carbon dioxide and methane, and air pollutants, which are
nitrogen oxide (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), and particulate mat-
ters (PM).
4) Calculation of present value of costs.
5) Computing net present values (NPVs):
Fig. 1. The Waste to Energy Recovery Assessment (WERA) framework uses population, income, per capita waste generation, and demographic data as inputs and computes
estimated electricity generation, emissions, and direct costs. The dotted lines depict the system boundary and encloses elements included in this study. Green parallelograms, blue
boxes, and orange parallelograms represent input, technology (system equations), and output parameters respectively. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure
legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
753
X
n
Bt X
n
Ct
NPV ¼ t
:: (1)
t¼0 ð1 þ iÞ t¼0 ð1 þ iÞt
where n is total number of years over which the system is evalu-
ated, Bt and Ct are benefits and costs in year t, and i is the discount
rate.
For analyzing a city, data of projected population, per capita
waste projection, waste collection rate, municipal waste composi-
tion, electricity purchase price, municipal waste collection fees, and
percentage of fossil fuels in power production are used. Future
population and per capita waste generation are projected using a
machine learning approach (see C.1. in SM). Monte Caro Simula-
tions (Mooney, 1997) are used to incorporate the multiple un-
certainties associated with parameters and scenarios used in the
analysis and obtain cumulative distribution functions for NPV. This
probabilistic assessment is then used for cost-benefit character-
ization of technology and policy scenarios.
3.3. Technologies
The study focuses on the following major thermochemical WtE
technologies:

Incineration with energy recovery. Incineration is one of the
most common WtE technologies (Ouda et al., 2016). In this
process, the heat produced by burning waste is utilized to
generate energy.

Pyrolysis: It is a thermochemical process which recovers 80% of
the stored energy in carbonaceous waste to liquid fuel and char
while decomposing carbonaceous waste at high temperature
(300e500 C ) in the absence of oxygen (Ouda et al., 2016).

Gasification: Gasification is an indirect combustion, which
converts the carbonaceous waste to syngas by reacting carbon
with oxygen or steam at high temperature (900e1600C )
754 M. Haraguchi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 224 (2019) 751e765
(Kalogirou, 2017; Ouda et al., 2016). Syngas, which is a mixture
of carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen (H2), carbon dioxide (CO2),
and methane (CH4), is directly used to produce energy (Arena,
2012; Astrup and Bilitewski, 2010; Kumar and Samadder,
2017). Pyrolysis and gasification can reduce the waste volume
by 95% (Yap and Nixon, 2015).

Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF): It is fuel produced from combustible
waste such as paper, wood, plastic, leather, textile waste, and
even shredded tires. RDF serves as an alternative fuel for power
plants, and can be co-fired with another fuel such as coal. Two
primary processing systems of solid waste into RDF are wet RDF
processing, which uses hydropulping technology, and dry RDF
processing (Rogoff and Screve, 2011). The efficiency of RDF
varies, depending on raw materials and processing. Data from a
few different studies was used to set a range of efficiency for RDF
in the WERA framework (See Table 1).
The focus of this work was on developing a framework for large
cities, which produce large quantities of municipal waste. There-
fore, anaerobic digestion, one of the major WtE technologies, are
not included in this study. Anaerobic digestion treats only food and
yard waste and processing capacity is usually smaller than ther-
mochemical WtE plants (World Bank, 2011).
For each technology, the model in WERA requires three inputs:
technological efficiency, applicability of technology to composition
of waste feedstock, and net calorific values for each feedstock.
Waste composition is impacted by various socio-economic profiles,
climate conditions, and regulations (Kumar and Samadder, 2017). In
general, more developed cities produce more plastic and paper
waste and less organics. However, composition of waste feedstock
varies from city to city.
3.4. WERA framework structure
Fig. 2 shows the structure of the WERA framework, which is
separated into five parts. The first part projects available waste
quantity for WtE. The second part calculates revenues, which
consists of two subcategories: revenues from generated electricity
and collection fees. Then, the third part monetizes avoided pollu-
tions and GHGs for revenues. The fourth part calculates capital and
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. The last part combines
revenues and costs with a discount rate for a period of analysis.
3.4.1. Part 1: waste quantity and composition projection
This part of the model estimates feedstock for a WtE system
based on solid waste produced in an urban region. The required
data are the quantity of annually generated waste and waste
composition. The model can adjust available feedstock depending
on cases when recycling or reuse policies are in effect.
Waste quantity is forecasted up to a target year for a city using
projected population (Table B.2 in SM) and per capita waste gen-
eration. The study uses population projections estimated by the
United Nations (2014). Per capita waste generation is projected
using historical data with predictive models with cross-validation
Table 1
Net electrical efficiencies of modeled technologies.
Technology Mean (%)
Incineration with energy recovery 19.00
Gasification 20.00
Pyrolysis 21.00
RDF 26.00
Source: [1] T. F. Astrup et al. (2015), [2] Fichtner Consulting Engineers Limited (2004), [3] Ouda et al. (2016), [4] Cherubini et al. (2009), [5] Consonni et al. (2005), [6]
Montejo et al. (2013), [7]Rigamonti et al. (2012), and [8]Turconi et al. (2011).
methods (Efron, 1983; Kohavi, 1995). Detailed methodology is
discussed in C.1. in SM. Collected waste quantity is derived with
collection rates of each city from equation (3). To estimate waste
composition, using the data of Hoornweg and Bhada-Tata (2012)
which has complied data from major countries, this study uses
stochastic models of waste composition, depending on projected
income levels of a country. The detailed methodology is explained
C.2 in SM.
3.4.2. Part 2: estimation of waste to energy conversion and
electricity generation, and calculation of revenues from collection
fees
The waste to energy conversion and electricity generation are
estimated as:
Revelectricity; t; tech ¼ Wa; t *C*Hc *Efftech *Pe (See Table 5)
The model accounts for applicability of different WtE technol-
ogies to different feedstock types. Different fraction of waste type to
be used for each technology are assigned (Table B.3 in SM). Avail-
able calorific values for waste are derived using the available
feedstock by types and net calorific values for the feedstock in
Table B.4 in SM. The total available energy (in MJ) is derived from
equation (5), using technological efficiencies (Table 1). Technolog-
ical efficiencies are assumed to be constant over time. Electricity
sales ($) are estimated by assuming that all generated electricity is
sold. In this part, revenues from waste collection fees, which vary
by city, is also computed.
3.4.3. Part 3: accounting avoided air pollution and GHG reductions
The WERA framework accounts for benefits other than energy
recovery, namely the reduction of greenhouse gases and air pol-
lutants. The amount of reduced GHGs and air pollutions is based on
“additionality and baseline” approach which are used in Clean
Development Mechanism of the United Nations. Explicitly, the
amount of GHG reductions is the difference between baseline
emissions and projected emissions from the plant:
Amounts of GHGs reduction ¼ baseline emissions e projected
emissions
The avoided air pollutants of WtE facilities are computed as the
difference between emission levels of WtE and landfill sites
(Table 2) and conventional power plants fueled with coal, oil, and
gas. Emissions from power generation are calculated proportionally
to percentages of fossil fuels utilized in each city of the case study
(Table B.5 in SM). The social costs from these pollutants are listed in
Table 3. The monetary benefits of GHGs and air pollutants re-
ductions are calculated based on the equation (7), using social costs
of air pollutants and the social cost of GHGs (Table 3). Although the
data of social costs in Table 3 covers both developed and developing
nations, social cost differs for countries. This study uses a social cost
of CO2 projected by Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of
Greenhouse Gases (2016) (See projected costs in Figure A.3 in
Standard Deviation (%) Source
7.50 [1]
5.30 [1]
5.61 [1]e[3]
6.89 [1], [3]e[8]
 M. Haraguchi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 224 (2019) 751e765 755

Fig. 2. Flow of the model with input parameters, process equations, and output parameters in the model.

Table 2
Emissions to air from waste management facilities (grams per ton of MSW).

Technology NOx SOx PM CO2 CH4 Source

Landfill 680 53 53 300,000 20,000 NOx, SOx, PM, CO2: Median values reported in [1]. CH4: [3]
Incineration with energy 1,600 42 38 100,000 0 NOx, SOx, PM, CO2: Median values reported in [1]. CH4: [3]
recovery
Gasification 272 91 12 100,000 454 NOx and SOx: Mean values of [3]. PM, CO2: Median values reported in [1]. CH4: Mean values of the range
of [3]
Pyrolysis 780 52 12 100,000 20,638 NOx, SOx, PM: Median values reported in [1]. CO2: [2]. CH4: Mean values of the range of [3]
RDF 818 47 21 118,790 0 Use ratio of RDF to incineration of MSW from Table 3 of [4].
Emissions from fossil fuels (gram/kWh)
Coal 2.72 5.90 e 1,020.13 e [5]
Oil 1.81 5.44 e 758.41 e [5]
Natural Gas 0.77 0.04 e 514.83 e [5]

[1] Defra ((Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs 2004)) [2] Zaman (2010), [3] Environmental Protection Agency (2012), [4] Chang et al. (1998), and [5]
Psomopoulos et al.(2009).
756 M. Haraguchi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 224 (2019) 751e765

Table 3
Summary of social costs. Estimates scaled to 2010 US dollars.

Minimum Mean Maximum Source

NOx 345 4,396 14,915 Harder and Gibson (2011)

SO2 1,208 3,140 7,379 Harder and Gibson (2011)
PM10 1,491 6,751 25,434 Harder and Gibson (2011)
CO2 10 e 26 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (2016).
CH4 370 735 1,100 Marten and Newbold (2012). These are the social cost of methane for 2010 in terms of the 2007 constant US$/ton

SM). This data can be adjusted for a specific country as needed.    

Wa;t CO2 lf  CO2 tech *PCO2 þ Wa;t NOxff  NOxtech *PNOx
   
þ Wa;t SOxff  SOxtech *PSOx þ Wa;t PM ff  PMtech *PPM
3.4.4. Part 4: present value of costs   
The WERA framework has used cost data primarily from A. þ Wa;t CH4 ff  CH4 tech *PCH4 þ Wa;t CO2 ff
Kumar and Samadder (2017) that has a comprehensive range of 
costs both for developed and developing countries (Table 4). In this  CO2 tech *PCO2
study, it is assumed that costs are linear regardless of plant sizes. It (7)
should be noted that costs differ among countries and cities. The
costs can be readily changed with values for a different city or
country. In this study, it was assumed that capacity of the WtE plant
was 1.1 times more than the maximum annual waste quantity 4. Application to selected urban cases
projected at the end of life. This assumption is based on industry
convention (Tsilemou and Panagiotakopoulos, 2006). The model is applied to four cities in different countries: Abu
Dhabi (United Arab Emirates), Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), Tokyo (Japan)
and New York (US). The study includes Tokyo and New York (where
WtE systems have been operating, albeit with traditional inciner-
3.4.5. Part 5: net present value
ation technologies) to partially test the framework. The cases of
Summarizing the above-mentioned components, the present
Abu Dhabi and Riyadh provide useful implications for other cities
value of a WtE plant is computed as shown in equations (2)e(7).
with rapidly increasing population and increasing generation of
municipal waste.
X
n
Benefitt; tech
X
n
Opext; tech
NPVtech ¼  Capextech  (2) The analysis is conducted for a 30-year time horizon starting in
t
t¼0 ð1 þ iÞ t¼0 ð1 þ iÞt 2016 and extending to 2045 with a constant discount rate of 6%. The
average life of WtE facilities is approximately 30 years (Kumar and
Samadder, 2017). The specific data and different parameters used
Wa; t ¼ Popt *Wpct *CR (3)
for each city are summarized in Table B.6 and Table B.7 in SM.

Total Revt;tech ¼ Rev electrt; tech þ Rev feet þ Rev polt; tech (4) 4.1. Urban waste management in selected cities

Rev electrt; tech ¼ Wa; t *C*Hc *Efftech *Pe (5) 4.1.1. Abu Dhabi
The UAE's per capita production of municipal waste is among
the top five in the world (Paleologos et al., 2016). In Abu Dhabi, per
Revfee; t ¼ Wa;t *F (6) capita waste generation was about 1.32 kg per day in 2016. The total
amount of municipal waste increased from about 1 million ton in
  
2009 to 1.6 million ton in 2016 (Abu Dhabi Statistics Center, 2016).
Rev polt; tech ¼ Wa;t NOxlf  NOxtech *PNOx þ Wa;t SOxlf
In Abu Dhabi, 59% of the municipal solid waste (MSW) are disposed
  
 SOxtech *PSOx þ Wa;t PM lf  PMtech *PPM in dumpsites. Only 16% of wastes are recycled, and 17% are treated
  in composting, and 8% goes landfill. In contrast, in other high-
þ Wa;t CH4 lf  CH4 tech *PCH4 income countries, dumping is only 0.01% (Hoornweg and Bhada-
Tata, 2012). Paleologos et al. (2016) argues that landfilling is not a
sustainable option for Abu Dhabi because the water table at the

Table 4
Cost of WtE technologies per plant.

WtE technologies Capital Cost (US$/ton of MSW/year) Operational Cost (US$/ton of MSW/year) Source

Incineration 400e700 40e70 [1]

Pyrolysis 400e700 50e80 [1]
Gasification 250e850 45e85 [1]
RDF 620e700 44e77 Capital cost:[2] Operational cost: [3]

Note: Note that these costs are per plant. For example, assumed capacities per plant are 100e200 kilo ton per year for gasification and incineration for developed countries.
Source: [1]: A. Kumar and Samadder (2017); [2]: Cost in the UK from Yap and Nixon (2015). [3]: Calculated 10% more operational cost than incineration.
 M. Haraguchi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 224 (2019) 751e765
coastal areas of UAE, including Abu Dhabi and Dubai, is less than
1 m below the surface (Paleologos et al., 2016). To address the issue,
Abu Dhabi aims to reduce the amount of waste landfilled by 80% by
2018 (Masdar, 2017; Paleologos et al., 2016). Abu Dhabi National
Energy Company has developed a WtE facility that can annually
convert one million tons of solid waste into 100 MW of energy with
the project investment of US$ 859 million (International Quality
and Productivity Center, 2016). The analysis for Abu Dhabi in this
work provides a broader, systematic assessment. The population is
projected to reach 4.71 million by 2045, which is the highest in-
crease among the selected cities. The collection rate is assumed to
be between 77 and 86%, which are the minimum (Cairo) and
maximum statistics (Baghdad) in the Middle East.
4.1.2. Riyadh
Recent research has reported severe environmental and health
problems caused by improper management of waste in Saudi
Arabia (Nizami et al., 2015). The national government regards WtE
as one of the promising solutions to treat waste sustainably while
generating energy (Ouda et al., 2016). The capital city of Riyadh had
a total population of about 6.2 million in 2014. The daily per capita
waste generation was reported to be 1.4 kg in 2012, which is the
highest among the selected four cities. At present, waste is disposed
to landfill or dump sites, after recycling of paper and cardboard
(Ouda et al., 2016). Current and projected population of Riyadh is
higher than that of Abu Dhabi (Table B.2 in SM). Its per capita waste
generation is projected to be above that of Abu Dhabi (Fig. 3).
Conversely, Abu Dhabi's gross domestic product (GDP) per capita
($61,009) is more than 2 twice that of Riyadh ($22,139) in 2014 (The
Brookings Institution, 2019), and the proportion of plastic in MSW
of Abu Dhabi is about 10 times higher that of Riyadh. The two cities,
while within the same region, have differentiating factors in
economy, population, and waste generation and management.
4.1.3. New York
The per capita generation of MSW in New York City is reported
to be 1.07 kg per day, which is slightly higher than Tokyo in com-
parison. The waste is transported out of the city, and 80% is sent to
landfills, while 20% of waste is treated in waste-to-energy facilities
(Johnson et al., 2017). One of WtE facilities that treat waste from
New York City is undertaken by Port Authority of New York and
New Jersey. Using incineration technology, the plant processes
about 1 million tons of solid waste per year while generating about
500 GWh of electricity each year (Port Authority of New York and
New Jersey, 2018). The annual operational budget for MSW
handling in 2012 was 1.6 billion US dollars for New York City
(Kellerman and Gibbs, 2014).
4.1.4. Tokyo
The per capita generation of waste in Tokyo is 0.957 kg per day
in 2016, which is the lowest among the four cities in the case study.
There was a shortage of landfill sites in Japan by the early 1990s
(Okuda and Thomson, 2007). Thus, incinerators were introduced to
treat waste, and the technology treated 75% of MSW starting in the
1990s (Okuda and Thomson, 2007). Advanced thermochemical
technologies, such as pyrolysis and gasification, were introduced in
the early 2000's because of the increased awareness toward dioxin
pollutions from outdated incinerators of the 1990s (Okuda and
Thomson, 2007). Tokyo has the highest waste collection fees
among the selected cities. One incineration plant in Koto-ward
Tokyo has annual capacity of 657 thousand tons of MSW (Tabata,
2013).
For all the cities of the case study, waste generation per capita is
projected with time series of GDP per capita and urban ratio using a
predictive neural net method (See Method C.1 in SM for the detail).
757
In addition, the current waste composition of each city is shown in
Figure A.4 in SM. The electricity price is linearly projected using
historical data for each case (Figure A.5 in SM).
The selected cities are systematically analyzed using a two-by-
two technology and policy scenario matrix: Business-as-usual
(BAU) and Future scenarios for both technology and policy op-
tions (Table 6). BAU scenario for technology assumes deploying
only incineration, while future scenario assumes deploying gasifi-
cation, pyrolysis, and RDF in addition to incineration. Under the
BAU scenario for policy, electricity generation and current waste
collection fees are accounted as benefits of investment. In contrast,
under the future policy scenario, benefits incurred by reducing air
pollutants and higher collection fees are also considered in calcu-
lating the cost-benefit ratio. The specific parameters among sce-
narios and cities are summarized in B.7 in SM.
5. Simulation results
10,000 simulation runs for a Monte Carlo analysis were con-
ducted. A set of uniform distributions were used for emissions and
cost parameters, and normal distributions were used for energy
efficiency for each technology (see Table B.8 in SM).
5.1. NPVs of technologies
Fig. 4 summarizes the NPV results obtained through the simu-
lation runs for four technologies for each city (See Figure A.6 in SM
for corresponding cumulative distributions of NPVs). The results
show that in the BAU Policy and Technology (BAUT-BAUP) scenario
the NPVs of incineration plants are negative for Abu Dhabi and
Riyadh, and are almost always positive for New York and Tokyo
(Fig. 4). The high collection fees lead to positive NPV results for
incineration systems in New York and Tokyo and the results partly
validate the framework (as there are several existing facilities for
waste treatment near these cities). However, as described earlier,
the model uses a simplifying assumption of a single central facility
for waste-to-energy conversion. The NPV estimates are therefore
larger and more optimistic than what would be the case for smaller
plants (that are actually in operation).
The NPV results are lower for Abu Dhabi and Riyadh, compared
to New York and Tokyo, which impose higher collection fees (New
York and Tokyo) and electricity price (Tokyo). The results also show
that in the BAU Policy scenario, the introduction of new technolo-
gies (of gasification, pyrolysis, and RDF) does not improve the net
present values. In fact, the median NPV tends to get lower in most
cases (Fig. 4.a, c, e, g). This is because the cost of incineration is
lower than the emerging technologies, notably pyrolysis and RDF,
and in the BAU Policy scenario social costs of emissions are not
included in the benefit-cost calculation. This shows that with new,
improved technologies alone, large waste-to-energy plants (for
example, about 4.8 million tons annual capacity plant for Riyadh)
may not be feasible without policy measures that can allow for
additional revenue streams (such as through increasing the waste
collection fees). See Table B.9 in SM for the total sizes and number
of assumed plants in each city.
In contrast, in the case of Future Policy (FP) scenario, which
accounts for social costs of emissions and increases revenues of
collection fees, the NPVs improve for all cities including for the BAU
Technology scenario. For example, the median NPV of incineration-
based WtE plants approaches zero in Abu Dhabi (Fig. 4.b), although
it is still negative for Riyadh (Fig. 4.d). Riyadh's NPVs are lower than
that of Abu Dhabi primarily because of a lower electricity rate.
Furthermore, in the Future Policy and Technology (FT-FP) scenario
(Fig. 4.b, d, f, h), the median NPVs of future technologies, especially
gasification and RDF, overtake those of incinerations across all
758 M. Haraguchi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 224 (2019) 751e765

Table 5
Symbols of variables used in this study.

Tech : Incineration; Pyrolysis; Gasification; RDF;

t : year; i : discount rate;
 
Wa;t : Available waste quantity of a specific year t tonne= ;
year
Popt : Population of a city of a specific year t ðthe number of peopleÞ;
Wpct : Per capita waste generation ðtonne per person per yearÞ;
where Wpct ¼ f ðGDP per capita; Urban ratioÞ;
CR : Collection rate ð%Þ
Total Revt;tech : Total Revenue from a technology in year t;
Rev electrt;tech : Revevnue from electricity generation from a technology in year t
Rev feet : Revevnue from colletion fee in year t
Rev polt;tech : Revevnue from reduced pollution from a technology in year t
C : Composition of feedstock waste ð%Þ;
 
MJ
Hc : Net calrific values ;
Tonne
Efftech : Electricic fet efficiency of a technology ð%Þ;
 
USD
Pe : Electricity price
MJ
 
USD
F : Collection fee of waste ;
tonne
 gram 
NOxlf : NOx emission from landfill of waste ;
tonne  gram 
NOxtech : NOx emission from a specific technology of waste
 gram tonne 
PNOx : Social Damage Cost of NOx emission of waste
 gram tonne 
NOxff : NOx emission from fossil fuel of waste ;
tonne
Wg;t : Generated Waste Quantity of a specific year t ðtonneÞ;
 
US$
Capextech : Capital cost of a technology in the first year of investment of waste ;
tonne
 
US$
Opextech; t : O&M cost of a technology of a speficic year t; of waste
tonne

Table 6
Analysis combinations of technology and policy options.

Business-as-Usual Policy (BAUP) Future Policy (FP)

BAU Technology (BAUT) BAU Technology and Policy (BAUT- BAUP) BAU Technology and Future Policy (BAUT-FP)
- Incineration - Incineration
- Current collection fees - Higher collection fees
- Projected electricity price - Projected electricity price
- Emission reduction benefits
Future Technology (FT) Future Technology and BAU Policy (FT-BAUP) Future Technology and Policy (FT-FP)
- Gasification, Pyrolysis and RDF - Gasification, Pyrolysis and RDF
- Current collection fees - Higher collection fees
- Projected electricity price - Projected electricity price
- Emission reduction benefits

cities, but pyrolysis does not make a significant difference in NPVs.
5.2. Extreme points analysis
The results in Fig. 4 show sets of extreme points, which are
marked in solid dots at the tails of the box-and-whisker plots.
Extreme points are defined as outliners greater than the 75%
quantile plus 1.5 times of an interquartile range. The interquartile
range is defined as the 75% quantile minus 25% quantile. Fig. 4
suggests that in certain combinations of uncertain parameters
(used in a simulation run) significantly different NPVs are produced
as compared to most other runs. In some cases, these extreme
points are interesting, such as the BAU case for Abu Dhabi where
extreme points and results above 75% percentile have a positive
NPV. These are interesting simulation runs to examine as they
provide information on the collective set of conditions and factors
that candat least in theorydallow for a break-even (zero NPV) case
for a WtE plant without requiring policy support or incentives.
The parameter values associated with these simulation runs are
summarized in Table 7. The minimum efficiencies in Table 7 can be
obtained by existing technologies, such as a combined cycle gas
turbine (Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, 2013;
Montejo et al., 2013; Whiting et al., 2013). The fees in Table 7 appear
feasible for Riyadh, given that Dubai plans to introduce a collection
fee of US$ 27 per ton of MSW (Staff Reporter, 2018). Extreme point
analysis also provides policy implications. For instance, in the BAU
Policy Scenario of gasification technology in Abu Dhabi, the NPVs of
extreme points range from US$ 1,208 million and above. These
simulation results are achieved by listed ranges of parameters in
Table 7. These results show that WtE can be feasible without
emission pricing, if technology efficiencies, waste collection rates,
and capital and O&M costs are collectively within the thresholds
listed in Table 7.
5.3. Comparison of technologies
This study compared technology options through ordinal rank-
ings to simplify some of the information in the results. The rankings
show the fraction of cases within the set of 10,000 simulations in
which a particular technology system had the highest NPV, or the
 M. Haraguchi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 224 (2019) 751e765
Fig. 3. Projected per capital waste generation for Abu Dhabi, Riyadh, New York, and
Tokyo. See Supplementary Materials for details of the projection method.
second highest NPV and so on. The rankings of technologies for BAU
and Future Policy scenarios are summarized in Fig. 5.
The figure shows how frequently a technology is placed in a rank
in terms of NPV. For example, in Fig. 5.(e), incineration had the
highest NPV (first rank) in about 12% and second-highest NPV
(second rank) in 62% of all 10,000 simulations for a given urban
case. Incineration performs poorly (with third or fourth ranks) in
future policy scenario in all the cities. However, it has the highest
NPV (first rank) in approximately 100% of the simulations for
Riyadh (Fig. 5.c) and in 12% of the simulations for New York in BAU
policy case (Fig. 5.e). In contrast, RDF and gasification become more
favorable technologies in all the cities in the Future Policy scenario
because differences in revenues from the reduction of social costs
of emissions among technologies exceeds the differences in costs
among technologies.
Table 8 shows the fraction of electricity demand (of previous
years) that can be served by electricity generated from the WtE
facilities. Under the BAU Technology scenario (which is incinera-
tion), 1.6e2.7% of the 2014 electricity demand can be met. The
proportion increases for new technologies. RDF is able to meet the
highest proportions 2.2e3.6% of electricity demands, while gasifi-
cation and pyrolysis can supply almost comparable proportions of
electricity at up to 2.8%.
These results confirm that WtE plants can only serve a small
fraction of urban electricity demand, and are not going to be major
contributors for addressing energy supply needs. However, these
systems are an important component for addressing broader goals
of sustainable waste management and reduction of environmental
pollution while generating small amounts of electricity that can be
759
important for developing countries. These systems have to be
viewed as such and evaluated accordingly as demonstrated in this
work.
5.4. Sensitivity analysis of increasing technology efficiencies
The framework has stationary distributions of parameters for
simulations. A sensitivity analysis with different efficiencies of
technologies (10% increase in mean) were also conducted, and re-
sults are shown in Figure A.11 in SM. The sensitivity analysis
showed that the results in Fig. 4 remained qualitatively robust (for
instance the NPV remains negative for Riyadh for specific scenar-
iosdsee Figure A.11 in SM).
5.5. Sensitivity analysis: impact of collection fees and electricity
tariffs
Fig. 6 shows heat maps illustrating impact of electricity prices
and collection fees on NPV for Abu Dhabi under the BAU Policy
Scenario as well as for Riyadh under the Future Policy Scenario
(Please refer to the Figure A.7e10 in SM for rest of results). A value
of zero NPV is in white, while positive and negative NPVs are in
shades of green and red respectively. In the four heat maps, the
white boxes are break-even points. For example, NPV for pyrolysis
becomes zero at US$ 0.22 per kWh of electricity rate and free of
collection fees in Abu Dhabi (Fig. 6.a). This electricity price of US$
0.22 per kWh is higher than the current electricity rates in Abu
Dhabi, which range from US$ 0.01 (for the agriculture sector) to US$
0.098 (for industry during peak time). For the electricity price at
US$ 0.098, the collection fee needs to exceed US$ 70 per ton of
MSW, for NPV to be positive. The black vertical lines show a
collection fee of US$ 27 per ton of MSW, which is expected to be
introduced in Dubai in the UAE from 2020. Therefore, under the
current possible combination of electricity rates and waste collec-
tion fee, the NPVs for Abu Dhabi are in a red box representing
negative NPVs. An increase of electricity rates and waste collection
fees (shown as dotted lines), there can be positive NPVs for Abu
Dhabi, even without monetization costs of air pollutions and
greenhouse gases. The increased electricity prices can be imple-
mented with policy instruments such as feed-in-tariffs. It should be
noted that the feed-in-tariff for PV panels is around US$ 0.22 in
some countries, such as Japan. In contrast, Riyadh requires higher
increase in feed-in-tariff or subsidies and collection fees than Abu
Dhabi (See Fig. 6.c and 6.d for details).
6. Discussion
6.1. Policy implications
The case studies show that waste collection fee and feed-in
tariffs have sufficient impact on NPV results (as demonstrated in
Fig. 6) such that these two levers can collectively or singularly affect
feasibility of WtE facilities. Waste collection fees are within the
jurisdictions of municipalities, while feed-in tariffs can be influ-
enced or controlled by state or local governments. This allows for
considering policy options to incentivize WtE systems at a local
planning and development level, rather than necessarily relying on
national environmental policies.
6.2. Advantages of stochastic modeling
There is significant literature on optimization of technologies

and processes for waste management (Li et al., 2012; Sompl k et al.,
a
2013; Xu et al., 2009). However, there has been relatively less focus
on system-level, combined technology and policy evaluation for
760 M. Haraguchi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 224 (2019) 751e765

Fig. 4. Box-and-Whisker plots of simulation results of Net Present Values (NPV) of different WtE technologies in four cities under BAU policy and Future Policy scenarios. From BAU
scenario to Future Policy scenario, the median NPVs increase for all cities. Median NPVs of incineration, gasification, and RDF in Abu Dhabi, New York and Tokyo exceed a zero NPV in
Future Policy scenario.

exploratory analysis of feasibility of WtE systems in urban regions.
Early stage studies inherently encompass uncertainties in data, that
are further compounded when the system of analysis involves
multi-decadal operational time horizons. Here, we have presented
a model to account for such multiple uncertainties (Table B.13 in
SM) and showcase important impacts on results. For instance, the
range of outcomes depicted in Fig. 6 highlight significant differ-
ences. The estimated NPV can vary between negative to positive
values, thereby having opposing outcomes that need to be
considered. The analysis also shows that policy levers such as feed-
in tariffs and collection fees increase the likelihood of a favorable
outcome, i.e. positive NPV, as shown through an increase in median
values for future policy scenarios. Additionally, the analysis of
extreme points (outliers in the simulation results) can reveal useful
insights for conditions in which a given technology can (or cannot)
perform favorably.
6.3. Differences among cities and implications
Different results for the cities provide useful insights. For
example, in comparing the results of Abu Dhabi and Riyadh under
Future Policy scenario, median NPVs of incineration, gasification
and RDF for Abu Dhabi exceed zero, while no technology exceeds a
zero NPV for Riyadh. Given that collection fees and social costs of
 M. Haraguchi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 224 (2019) 751e765 761

Table 7
Ranges of parameters of positive extreme points of NPVs for Abu Dhabi under the BAU and Riyadh for Future Policy scenarios.

Incineration Gasification Pyrolysis RDF

BAU Policy Scenario (Abu Dhabi)
Efficiencies (%) 30.0e44.3 27.3e37.0 28.7e42.3 35.3e51.0
Collection rates (%) 77.2e85.9 77.1e85.9 77.0e85.7 77.5e86.0
Capex (US$/ton of MSW) 407e697 405e695 400e690 417e700
Opex (US$/ton of MSW) 51e79 51e76 50e80 50e79
Future Policy Scenario (Riyadh)
Efficiencies (%) 25.7e44.3 21.3e36.6 24.5e42.3 28.8e51.0
Collection rates (%) 77.2e85.8 80.9e86.0 77.0e86.0 78.1e86.0
Capex (US$/ton of MSW) 407e694 530e699 400e699 437e700
Opex (US$/ton of MSW) 51e79 52e80 50e79 50e80
Collection Fee (US$/ton of MSW) 0.6e26.4 11.7e26.9 0e26.9 3.3e27.0
NOx price (US$/ton of MSW) 666e14,603 6,635e14,868 354e14,876 2,118e14,899
SOx price (US$/ton of MSW) 1,649e7,371 1,231e5,221 2051e7,318 1,223e7,361
PM price (US$/ton of MSW) 1,519e22,607 2,575e25,341 1510e25,171 1,664e25,255
CH4 price (US$/ton of MSW) 392e1,098 376e1,095 388e1,090 372e1,096

pollutants and GHGs are assumed to be equivalent for these cities,
differences in electricity prices cause this difference. Electricity
prices for industry in Abu Dhabi is more than two times higher than
Riyadh (Figure A.5 in SM). Future studies could apply the model to
other cities, including European cities, which has advanced WtE
systems.
6.4. Waste reduction, recycling, and reuse
Experts and researchers in sustainable waste management
highlight waste reduction, recycling and reuse as preferred options
(Ouda et al., 2016; Tan et al., 2014) with waste disposal as a last
option (Ouda et al., 2016). This strategy, however, targets different
kinds of waste. For instance, metal and plastics can be recycled,
however, organic waste can be used for energy recovery. Recent
studies, in fact, show a positive association between recycling rate
and prevalence of energy recovery, indicating that a country with
high recycling rate tends to recover energy from waste to higher
degrees (Achillas et al., 2011; Kumar and Samadder, 2017; Pan et al.,
2014). In addition, the European Commission has recently eluci-
dated the role of WtE that WtE processes can promote the transi-
tion to a circular economy given that the waste hierarchy is
reconfirmed as a principle (Malinauskaite et al., 2017). A good
strategy is to advance recycling and reuse while dealing with re-
sidual mix waste after material recovery using WtE technologies. In
the framework developed and presented here, recycling and reuse
options can be analyzed by adjusting parameters in waste feedstock
to technologies. Such cases with recycling will be analyzed in future
studies.
6.5. Limitations and future studies
mandatory to melt the ash from WtE plants, and it is utilized as
valuable byproducts (Reddy, 2016). In the US, only 7% of the bottom
ash produced in waste incinerators is recycled, and the rest is
landfilled (Reddy, 2016). Compared to bottom ash, boiler ash and
flue gas cleaning residues are more hazardous since they contain
the high concentration of heavy metals, which have limited recy-
cling applications (Reddy, 2016). In future work, such additions will
be made to the framework.
In this study, food and yard waste were assumed to be discarded
in the same manner as the other trash. Composting is a preferred
option in the waste management hierarchy, and composting can be
added to the WERA framework in future work.
In this study, capital and O&M costs of facilities and social costs
of emissions do not differ from cities and countries, though the data
listed in Table 2 cover both developing and developed countries.
The intent of this study is not to compare absolute values of NPVs
among different cities (e.g., which city can achieve higher NPVs
than any other cities). Instead, the study intends to provide first-
order initial analysis regarding the feasibility of a WtE system.
Therefore, the costs among countries and cities are not differenti-
ated. Furthermore, the cost model does not assume economies of
scale, and costs are modeled linearly based on unit cost per plant
(as shown in Table 4). Therefore, the NPV estimates presented in
the results are conservative. In future work, the WERA framework
will include geographical differences and consider economics of
scale for refining the cost model.
Additionally, in follow-on work, the WERA framework will be
applied to study mega-cities in developing countries, namely Delhi
(India), Karachi (Pakistan), and Jakarta (Indonesia), which face se-
vere challenges in waste management, and additional analysis of
cities in Africa and South and Central America is also planned.

The system boundaries can be expanded in future studies. 7. Conclusions

Transportation and collection of wastes to a WtE facility are not
considered in this study. Waste transportation can have high
environmental impacts such as CO2 emissions (Cucchiella et al.,
2014). Additionally, the costs of treating residues from various
WtE processes are not considered. Combustion produces two types
of residues: bottom ash, which is typically 20e25% of the original
mass and 5e10% of the volume, and boiler ash and flue gas cleaning
residues, which are in total 3e5% of original waste mass, depending
on types of waste (Kalogirou, 2017; Reddy, 2016). Bottom ash can be
relatively easily recycled into applications for construction aggre-
gates, raw materials in cement production and feedstock for pro-
ducing ceramic material (Kalogirou, 2017). Germany and France use
more than 60% of the bottom ash, while the Netherlands uses
almost all incinerator residues (Reddy, 2016). In Japan, it is
The framework presented in this study can be used to analyze
initial feasibility and investments for waste-to-energy systems for
treating municipal solid waste. While life cycle assessments and
other studies have shown that emerging WtE technologies can
address local environmental burdens while reducing GHG emis-
sions (Münster and Lund, 2010; Ouda et al., 2016), the financial
feasibility of such systems had not been studied in detail. The
WERA framework presented here allows for stochastic estimation
of NPVs of WtE technologies while considering environmental
benefits. The framework can also be expanded to include waste
minimization, recycling, and reuse scenarios. A useful feature is
that limitations or absence of data can be readily handled as sto-
chastic parameters.
762 M. Haraguchi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 224 (2019) 751e765

Fig. 5. Ranking of WtE technologies in each city. 100% stacked column charts show the frequency that the technologies are placed in each rank in terms of NPVs. For example, in
Fig. 5.(e) for the case of New York, incineration is ranked first (highest NPV) in about 12% and ranked second (second highest NPV) in 62% of all 10,000 simulations. Under the Future
Policy scenario, incineration becomes a less desirable option for all the cities. For all four cities, RDF and gasification are better options (with highest or second highest levels of NPV)
in future policy scenarios where social costs of emissions and higher collection fees are assumed.

Table 8
Proportion of 2014 electricity demands met by WtE technologies in each city.

Total electricity consumption (GWh in 2014) Incineration Gasification Pyrolysis RDF

Abu Dhabi 32,777 2.0% 2.1% 1.8% 2.8%

Riyadh 58,507 1.6% 1.7% 1.4% 2.2%
New York 111,981 1.8% 1.8% 1.5% 2.4%
Tokyo 104,002 2.7% 2.8% 2.3% 3.6%

Note: Medians of generated electricity in the first year of simulations are used. Total electricity consumptions are derived from the current population in each city and per
capita electricity consumption at a national level. Source: Per capita electricity consumption (World Bank, 2018); current population (Table B.6 in SM).
 M. Haraguchi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 224 (2019) 751e765 763

Fig. 6. Heat maps show median NPVs (in million US$) for different electricity (on vertical axis) and waste collection fee rates (on horizontal axis). Red, white, and green boxes show
when NPVs are negative, zero, and positive respectively. The black vertical dotted lines indicate a collection fee of US$27 per tons of MSW, which is expected to be introduced in
Dubai in UAE from 2020 (Staff Reporter, 2018). The purple dotted boxes indicate the current electricity rates. The rates of Abu Dhabi range from US$ 0.01 to 0.098 per kWh. The rates
€
of Riyadh range US$ 0.039e0.4625 per kWh (Japan External Trade Organization, 2010; Yalçin and Oztürk, 2013). 1,000 simulation runs were conducted to create the heat maps. (For
interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

This study applied the WERA framework to Tokyo and New York
(for partial validation), and then analyzed two cases of Riyadh and
Abu Dhabi with business-as-usual and future policy and technology
scenarios. The results show that under a combination of conditions,
that include efficiencies at 35% or higher for RDF and 27% or higher
for gasification technologies, collection rate at 77.5% or higher for
RDF and 77.1% or higher for gasification technologies, and fixed
power purchase agreements, WtE systems can break-even or even
have positive return under existing conditions for Abu Dhabi
(Table 7). In case of Riyadh, additional policy support, such as
higher collection fees and monetized social costs of emissions are
needed along with use of emerging technologies of gasification or
RDF that in some cases can lead to viable WtE systems.
Sustainable management and disposal of solid waste remains a
continuing challenge in many urban regions and is intimately
linked with sustainable urban development (Alfaris et al., 2010). In
developing countries, the cost of municipal waste handling and
management has led to absence of viable systems for waste
collection. Furthermore, in many such countries, least-cost options
for waste handling with little to no considerations of environ-
mental impacts have been historically built. Now, with improved
technical efficiencies and technologies, including gasification and
RDF, along with judicious policy, WtE should be considered with
decision-support tools (such as the WERA framework) for urban
waste management systems.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Emirates Leadership Initiative
Fund at the Harvard Kennedy School.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.099.
References
Abu Dhabi Statistics Center, 2016. Waste Statistics in the Emairte of Abu Dhabi 2016
(Abu Dhabi).
Achillas, C., Vlachokostas, C., Moussiopoulos, N., Banias, G., Kafetzopoulos, G.,
Karagiannidis, A., 2011. Resources , Conservation and Recycling Social accep-
tance for the development of a waste-to-energy plant in an urban area. Resour.
Conserv. Recycl. 55, 857e863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.04.012.
Alfaris, A., Siddiqi, A., Rizk, C., de Weck, O., Svetinovic, D., 2010. Hierarchical
decomposition and multidomain formulation for the design of complex
764 M. Haraguchi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 224 (2019) 751e765
sustainable systems. J. Mech. Des. 132, 91003.
Ali, G., Nitivattananon, V., Abbas, S., Sabir, M., 2012. Green waste to biogas :
renewable energy possibilities for Thailand ’ s green markets. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 16, 5423e5429.
Arena, U., 2012. Process and technological aspects of municipal solid waste gasifi-
cation. A Rev. Waste Manag. 32, 625e639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.
2011.09.025.
Astrup, T., Bilitewski, B., 2010. Chapter 8.8: pyrolysis and gasification. In:
Christensen, T. (Ed.), Solid Waste Technology & Management. Wiley,
pp. 502e512.
Astrup, T.F., Tonini, D., Turconi, R., Boldrin, A., 2015. Life cycle assessment of thermal
Waste-to-Energy technologies: review and recommendations. Waste Manag.
37, 104e115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.06.011.
Ayodele, T.R., Ogunjuyigbe, A.S.O., Alao, M.A., 2017. Life cycle assessment of waste-
to-energy (WtE) technologies for electricity generation using municipal solid
waste in Nigeria. Appl. Energy 201, 200e218. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
APENERGY.2017.05.097.
Castaldi, M.J., Themelis, N.J., 2010. The case for increasing the global capacity for
waste to energy (WTE). Waste Biomass Valorization 1, 91e105. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12649-010-9010-1.
Chang, Y.H., Chen, W.C., Chang, N. Bin, 1998. Comparative evaluation of RDF and
MSW incineration. J. Hazard Mater. 58, 33e45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-
3894(97)00118-0.
Cherubini, F., Bargigli, S., Ulgiati, S., 2009. Life cycle assessment ( LCA ) of waste
management strategies : landfilling , sorting plant and incineration. Energy 34,
2116e2123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2008.08.023.
Consonni, S., Giugliano, M., Grosso, M., 2005. Alternative strategies for energy re-
covery from municipal solid waste: Part B: emission and cost estimates. Waste
Manag. 25, 137e148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2004.09.006.
Cucchiella, F., D'Adamo, I., Gastaldi, M., 2014. Sustainable management of waste-to-
energy facilities. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 33, 719e728. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.rser.2014.02.015.
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, 2013. Advanced Thermal
Treatment of Municipal Solid Waste.
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, 2004. Review of Environ-
mental and Health Effects of Waste Mangement: Municipal Solid Waste and
Similar Wastes.
Efron, B., 1983. Estimating the error rate of a prediction rule: improvement on
cross-validation. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 78, 316e331.
Environmental Projection Agency, 2012. State of Practice for Emerging Waste
Conversion Technologies (Washington DC, U.S).
Fichtner Consulting Engineers Limited, 2004. The Viability of Advanced Thermal
Treatment of. MSW, the UK.
Fletcher, S.M., Miotti, M., Swaminathan, J., Klemun, M.M., Strzepek, K., Siddiqi, A.,
2017. Water supply infrastructure planning: decision-making framework to
classify multiple uncertainties and evaluate flexible design. J. Water Resour.
Plan. Manag. 143, 04017061. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.
0000823.
Gohlke, O., Martin, J., 2007. Drivers for innovation in waste-to-energy technology.
Waste Manag. Res. 25, 214e219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X07079146.
Harder, E., Gibson, J.M., 2011. The costs and benefits of large-scale solar photovoltaic
power production in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Renew. Energy 36,
789e796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2010.08.006.
Hoornweg, D., Bhada-Tata, P., 2012. What a Waste : A Global Review of Solid Waste
Management (No. 15), Urban Development Series;knowledge Papers (Wash-
ington, DC).
Huang, G.H., Liu, L., Chen, Z., 2001. An interval-parameter fuzzy-stochastic pro-
gramming approach for municipal solid waste management and planning.
Environ. Model. Assess. 6, 271e283.
Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, 2016. Technical
Support Document: - Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regu-
latory Impact Analysis - under Executive Order 12866.
International Quality and Productivity Center, 2016. Top Waste-To-Energy Projects
in the Middle East.
Japan External Trade Organization, 2010. Chuto oyobi kita Africa ni okeru saisei-
kanou enegugishijyo nikansuru chosa e Saudi Arabia hen (Survey on renewable
energy markets in the Middle East and North Africa e Saudi Arabia).
Johnson, N.E., Ianiuk, O., Cazap, D., Liu, L., Starobin, D., Dobler, G., Ghandehari, M.,
2017. Patterns of waste generation: a gradient boosting model for short-term
waste prediction in New York City. Waste Manag. 62, 3e11. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.wasman.2017.01.037.
Juul, N., Münster, M., Ravn, H., So € derman, M.L., 2013. Challenges when performing
economic optimization of waste treatment: a review. Waste Manag. 33,
1918e1925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2013.04.015.
Kalogirou, E.N., 2017. Waste-to-Energy Technologies and Global Applications. CRC
Press, Boca Raton, FL. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315269061.
Kaza, S., Yao, L., 2018. Landslides, Dumpsites, and Waste Pickers [WWW Document].
URL. http://blogs.worldbank.org/sustainablecities/landslides-dumpsites-and-
waste-pickers. accessed 7.20.18.
Kellerman, C., Gibbs, K., 2014. 12 Things New Yorkers Should Know about Their
Garbage [WWW Document]. URL. https://cbcny.org/research/12-things-new-
yorkers-should-know-about-their-garbage. accessed 12.8.18.
Kohavi, R., 1995. A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation
and model selection. Appears in the International Joint Conference on Arti Cial
Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 1137e1145. Montreal, Canada.
Kumar, A., Samadder, S.R., 2017. A review on technological options of waste to
energy for effective management of municipal solid waste. Waste Manag. 69,
407e422. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WASMAN.2017.08.046.
Kumar, S., Smith, S.R., Fowler, G., Velis, C., Kumar, S.J., Arya, S., Kumar, R.,
Cheeseman, C., 2017. Challenges and opportunities associated with waste
management in India. R. Soc. Open Sci. 4 (3), 160764. https://doi.org/10.1098/
rsos.160764.
Li, Y.P., Huang, G.H., Nie, S.L., 2012. A mathematical model for identifying an optimal
waste management policy under uncertainty. Appl. Math. Model. 36,
2658e2673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2011.09.049.
Lombardi, L., Carnevale, E., Corti, A., 2015. A review of technologies and perfor-
mances of thermal treatment systems for energy recovery from waste. Waste
Manag. 37, 26e44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.11.010.
Maheshi, D., Steven, V.P., Karel, V.A., 2015. Environmental and economic assessment
of “open waste dump” mining in Sri Lanka. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 102, 67e79.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.07.004.
Malinauskaite, J., Jouhara, H., Czajczyn  ska, D., Stanchev, P., Katsou, E., Rostkowski, P.,
Thorne, R.J., Colo n, J., Ponsa
, S., Al-Mansour, F., Anguilano, L., Krzyzy _ n
 ska, R.,
Lo pez, I.C., Vlasopoulos, A., Spencer, N., 2017. Municipal solid waste manage-
ment and waste-to-energy in the context of a circular economy and energy
recycling in Europe. Energy 141, 2013e2044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.
2017.11.128.
Margallo, M., Dominguez-Ramos, A., Aldaco, R., Bala, A., Fullana, P., Irabien, A., 2014.
Environmental sustainability assessment in the process industry: a case study
of waste-to-energy plants in Spain. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 93, 144e155.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RESCONREC.2014.09.014.
Marten, A.L., Newbold, S.C., 2012. Estimating the social cost of non-CO2GHG
emissions: methane and nitrous oxide. Energy Policy 51, 957e972. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.09.073.
Martinez-Sanchez, V., Levis, J.W., Damgaard, A., DeCarolis, J.F., Barlaz, M.A.,
Astrup, T.F., 2017. Evaluation of externality costs in life-cycle optimization of
municipal solid waste management systems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51,
3119e3127. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b06125.
Masdar, 2017. Masdar and Bee’ah to Build 300,000-tonne Waste-To-Energy Plant in
Sharjah [WWW Document]. URL. http://www.masdar.ae/en/media/detail/
masdar-and-beeah-to-build-300000-tonne-waste-to-energy-plant-in-sharjah.
accessed 7.20.18.
Montejo, C., Tonini, D., Ma rquez, C., Fruergaard, T., 2013. Mechanical e biological
treatment : performance and potentials . An LCA of 8 MBT plants including
waste characterization. J. Environ. Manag. 128, 661e673. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jenvman.2013.05.063.
Mooney, C.Z., 1997. Monte Carlo Simulation. Sage Publications.
Münster, M., Lund, H., 2010. Comparing Waste-to-Energy technologies by applying
energy system analysis. Waste Manag. 30, 1251e1263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2009.07.001.
Nizami, A., Rehan, M., Ouda, O.K.M., Shahzad, K., Sadef, Y., Iqbal, T., Ismail, I.M.I.,
2015. An argument for developing waste-to-energy technologies in Saudi
Arabia. Chem. Eng. Trans. 45, 337e342. https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1545057.
Okuda, I., Thomson, V.E., 2007. Regionalization of municipal solid waste manage-
ment in Japan: balancing the proximity principle with economic efficiency.
Environ. Manag. 40, 12e19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-006-0194-x.
Ouda, O.K.M., Raza, S.A., Nizami, A.S., Rehan, M., Al-Waked, R., Korres, N.E., 2016.
Waste to energy potential: a case study of Saudi Arabia. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 61, 328e340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.04.005.
Paleologos, E.K., Caratelli, P., Amrousi, M. El, 2016. Waste-to-energy: an opportunity
for a new industrial typology in Abu Dhabi. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 55,
1260e1266. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2015.07.098.
Pan, S.Y., Du, M.A., Huang, I. Te, Liu, I.H., Chang, E.E., Chiang, P.C., 2014. Strategies on
implementation of waste-to-energy (WTE) supply chain for circular economy
system: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 108, 409e421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2015.06.124.
Parshall, L., Haraguchi, M., Rosenzweig, C., Hammer, S.A., 2011. The Contribution of
Urban Areas to Climate Change : New York City Case Study, Case Study Prepared
for Cities and Climate Change: Global Report on Human Settlements 2011.
Pires, A., Martinho, G., Chang, N. Bin, 2011. Solid waste management in European
countries: a review of systems analysis techniques. J. Environ. Manag. 92,
1033e1050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.11.024.
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 2018. Essex County Resource Recovery
[WWW Document]. URL. http://www.panynj.gov/real-estate-development/
essex-county-resource-recovery.html. accessed 7.24.18.
Psomopoulos, C.S., Bourka, A., Themelis, N.J., 2009. Waste-to-energy: a review of
the status and benefits in USA. Waste Manag. 29, 1718e1724. https://doi.org/10.
1016/J.WASMAN.2008.11.020.
Reddy, P., 2016. Energy Recovery from Municipal Solid Waste by Thermal Conver-
sion Technologies. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b21307.
Rigamonti, L., Grosso, M., Biganzoli, L., 2012. Environmental assessment of refuse-
derived fuel Co-combustion in a coal-fired power plant. J. Ind. Ecol. 16,
748e760. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00428.x.
Rogoff, M.J., Screve, F., 2011. Chapter 3: WTE technology. Waste-to-Energy: Tech-
nologies and Project Implementation. William Andrew. https://doi.org/10.1016/
B978-1-4377-7871-7.10003-6.
Scheutz, C., Kjeldsen, P., Gentil, E., 2009. Greenhouse gases, radiative forcing, global
warming potential and waste management d an introduction. Waste Manag.
Res. 27, 716e723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X09345599.
Siddiqi, A., Anadon, L.D., 2011. The water e energy nexus in Middle East and North
 M. Haraguchi et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 224 (2019) 751e765
Africa. Energy Policy 39, 4529e4540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.04.
023.
Siddiqi, A., Kajenthira, A., Anado n, L.D., 2013. Bridging decision networks for inte-
grated water and energy planning. Energy Strateg. Rev. 2, 46e58. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.esr.2013.02.003.

Sompl k, R., Ferdan, T., Pavlas, M., Popela, P., 2013. Waste-to-energy facility plan-
a World Bank, 2018. World Development Indicator [WWW Document]. URL. https://
ning under uncertain circumstances. Appl. Therm. Eng. 61, 106e114. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2013.04.003.
Staff Reporter, 2018. Dubai to Impose “Waste Disposal Fee” Starting May. Khaleej
Times.
Tabata, T., 2013. Waste-to-energy incineration plants as greenhouse gas reducers: a
case study of seven Japanese metropolises. Waste Manag. Res. 31, 1110e1117.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X13502385.
Tan, S.T., Hashim, H., Shiun, J., Shin, W., Tin, C., Yan, J., 2014. Energy and emissions
benefits of renewable energy derived from municipal solid waste : analysis of a
low carbon scenario in Malaysia. Appl. Energy 136, 797e804. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.apenergy.2014.06.003.
The Brookings Institution, 2019. Global Metro Monitor [WWW Document]. URL.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/global-metro-monitor/. accessed 1.18.19.
Tsilemou, K., Panagiotakopoulos, D., 2006. Approximate cost functions for solid
waste treatment facilities. Waste Manag. Res. 24, 310e322. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0734242X06066343.
Turconi, R., Butera, S., Boldrin, A., Grosso, M., Rigamonti, L., Astrup, T., 2011. Life
cycle assessment of waste incineration in Denmark and Italy using two LCA
models. Waste Manag. Res. 29, S78eS90. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0734242X11417489.
765
United Nations, 2014. World Urbanization Prospects.
United Nations Environment Programme, 2015. Global Waste Management Outlook
2015. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X15616055.
Whiting, K., Fanning, M., Wilyman, M., 2013. Review of State-Of-The-Art Waste-To-
Energy Technologies.
data.worldbank.org/indicator. accessed 6.4.18.
World Bank, 2011. Viability of Current and Emerging Technologies for Domestic
Solid Waste Treatment and Disposal: Implications on Dioxin and Furan Emis-
sions (Washington DC, U.S).
Xin-gang, Z., Gui-wu, J., Ang, L., Ling, W., 2016. Economic analysis of waste-to-
energy industry in China. Waste Manag. 48, 604e618. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.wasman.2015.10.014.
Xu, Y., Huang, G.H., Qin, X.S., Cao, M.F., 2009. SRCCP: a stochastic robust chance-
constrained programming model for municipal solid waste management un-
der uncertainty. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 53, 352e363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2009.02.002.
Yalcin, Levent, Ozturk, Ramazan, 2013. Performance comparison of c-Si, mc-Si and
a-Si thin film PV by PVsyst simulation. J. Optoelectron. Adv. Mater. 15 (3-4),
326e334.
Yap, H.Y., Nixon, J.D., 2015. A multi-criteria analysis of options for energy recovery
from municipal solid waste in India and the UK. Waste Manag. 46, 265e271.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.08.002.
Zaman, A.U., 2010. Comparative study of municipal solid waste treatment tech-
nologies using life cycle assessment method. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 7 (2),
225e234. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03326132.